The President is Angry Again

Ron Fournier has written a National Journal report of today's defeat of some gun control legislation.

I was reading it all the way through an thinking about writing a post to respond to some of his assertions.  He blames the Senate Republican and the NRA, but almost gets it right, when he writes "It’s hard to overcome challenges that are inherent. While polls show broad support for background checks, they also show a deep distrust of Obama among conservative voters, particularly in red states. Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor’s supporters will tell you the only thing more dangerous than backing gun control in Arkansas is backing Obama—on anything"  But misses that most "conservative voters" would support the President if he would simply take a position that they could support.  It's not personal with us.  Really.  Why is that so hard to believe?

I could go on... but the point of this post is that today, April 17, 2013, our angry President is back.

He hadn't been seen for a while.  I don't know whether that because it wasn't reported or if the President has had his emotions in control for the past four years.   But I'll make my original point again.

"Doesn't sound very cool to me. I never before thought of the implications of having an angry President. Not comforting."

The Willy Victor Shootdown - Forty Four Years

John Lilyea at This Ain't Hell... has posted a nice memorial to the Willy Victor crew killed 44 years ago by the North Koreans.

I learned something new - I never knew that April 15th was Kim Il Sung's birthday.
He does a good job putting it in the context of the Cold War and making it relevant to today's headlines.

The lesson we learned from that shoot-down, one that was strongly emphasized in future Cold War reconnaissance missions, was that when you're flying close to a hostile, hair-trigger nation's airspace, where you are is not as important as where they think you are. That is, if their air defense system believes you have penetrated their country's sovereign air space, they just might try to kill you. The challenge was answering the question "where do they think we are and what do they intend to do about it?"
 
My Memorial Day post from 2009 lists what I believe to be all Navy crypologists (Cryptologic Technicians, radio Marines, and officers) killed in action since the beginning of the Cold War.

Rest in Peace guys.

It's All About Control

Imagine how a gay person might feel living in some state like Mississippi, Utah, or Florida where gay couples are banned from adopting children (until a recent court case overturned the Florida law).

Imagine trying to defend against arguments why you shouldn't have the right to adopt a child.

The people who would prohibit gay adoption, just want to "protect the children," of course. They want to legislate morality and gays have a lifestyle they disagree with.  The don't understand the attraction. Besides, male pedophiles who molest young boys are, by definition, homosexuals. They say by putting innocent children in a home with homosexual, you're exposing them to potential child molesters.

The law abiding gay guy is left defending himself with, "But I'm not a child molester. I would never harm a child."

I think that if your first response in an argument has to be "I'm not a child molester," then the other side has put you at a serious disadvantage. The other sides whole premise may be wrong, projecting the intent and criminal acts of the mentally ill (or just evil) pedophile onto you. "Pedophiles like boys, you like boys, so you're the same as a pedophile."   It's dishonest. It's a cheap shot. It plays on emotions of protecting the children. It equates a law abiding citizen to a criminal in order to advance a social agenda.

Kinda like the gun control arguments.

These legal moralists want to impose their values on the rest of the country. The don't approve of guns, they don't understand the attraction.  They know the some people with guns commit horrible criminal acts agains the innocent. "Murderers use guns, you use guns, so you're the same as a murderer."

Law abiding gun owners stand open mouthed in frustration, crying "but I'm not a murderer, I would never harm a child." Just like a gay guy wanting to adopt a child...

The people who would prohibit gay adoption by a loving couple and the people who would restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens usually come from two different ends of the political spectrum. But the arguments from both sides are equally dishonest, playing on emotions to advance their view of what a good society should be, imposing their values and restricting peoples liberty through the force of government.

Gay bashers and gun grabbers. I think they have much more in common than they would ever admit.

North Korea has a nuclear weapons delivery system

North Korean nuclear capability was inadvertently revealed this week when a congressman read a portion of a DIA report "He said, reading from the report: "DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivering by ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low.''
North Korea has announced their intent.  Now they apparently have some capability. 

But policymakers are reduced to hedging about the reliability of their systems? 

Hope is not a strategy.

Chief Cryptologic Technician (Technical) (IDW/SW) Christian Michael Pike

 Chief Petty Officer Christian Michael Pike, 31, of Peoria, Arizona died March 13 in Landstuhl, Germany as a result of combat related injuries sustained on March 10 while conducting stability operations in Maiwand District, Afghanistan. He was assigned to West Coast-based Naval Special Warfare Support Activity ONE. 

 

Cross posted from the Captain's blog.

 

For a roll of Navy Cryptologist killed since the beginning of the Cold War, see my Memorial Day post from 2009.  Unfortunately, I have to keep adding names. Rest in Peace shipmates. 

Do You Believe North Korea

Via HotAir, CBS News reports that "North Korea is urging all foreign companies and tourists in South Korea to evacuate or find out where they can take shelter because it says the rival Koreas are on the eve of a nuclear war. The new threat appeared to be an attempt to keep the region on tenterhooks over its intentions.

Analysts see a direct attack on Seoul as extremely unlikely, and there are no overt signs that North Korea's 1.2 million-man army is readying for war, let alone a nuclear one."

So telling people to evacuate or take cover is not an overt sign?  Capability and intent. They have nuclear weapons, they are demonstrating intent.

I remember reading the words a Holocaust survivor had taught his son about what he had learned

"When someone says they are going to kill you—you must believe them."

Memorial Day 2012 - Cryptologic Direct Support Team Lost off Vietnam

From the USS Enterprise, "...at 0844 on 12 December 1971, a COD flight, Grumman C-2A Greyhound (BuNo 152793), Lieutenant Vetal C. LaMountain, Jr., pilot, and Lieutenant (jg) Gale V. Woolsey, Jr., co-pilot, VRC-50 Det Cubi Point, took off from Cubi Point, bound for Enterprise, routed via Tan Son Nhut, for a “logistic support mission.” Two other crewmembers, Airman James M. Van Buswum, plane captain, and ABH3 Richard C. Gaynor, load master; together with six passengers, Petty Officer 1^st Class (He was a CTO1 ed.) D.E. Dickerson, CTR1 Walter Ray Woods, CTM2 G.K. Zeller, CTO3 J.M. Coon, CTISN J.M. Deremigio and Seaman S.H. Elliott, were also on board. Flying across the South China Sea on Airway R68 the Greyhound reported in at 0927, having reached Coral Intersection, at approximately 13º07’N, 117º00’E. From 0941, however, nothing further was heard from the C-2A.

We remember these men on Memorial Day.  It was a CDSE (Cryptologic Direct Support Element) team. It started out as just a routine det like so many others. A young team flying out to meet their ship and get on with their mission.  But it ended tragically. 

Regarding their memory.  I visited the Wall this weekend and looked for them. They are not listed.  Some of their family members are trying to get this changed and NSA is still keeping the mission classified. My assumption is that they were listed somehow as not "in theater."  If you know something about their mission or the loss, or would like to help with the effort, try the contact info at the link for Dick Willis, Senior Analyst with Stanley Associates.

For a complete list of Navy Cryptologists killed since WWII, see my Memorial Day post from 2009.

Math is Hard

There's a lot of news about how worried we are that the supercommittee can't find $1.2 trillion in federal budget cuts over the next ten years.

I am surprised that the press reports don't mention the math...

Over ten years, $1.2 trillion is $120 billion each year.

The 2012 federal budget proposed by President Obama was $3.7 trillion. For one year.

So to meet the goal - the supercommittee needs to make a cut of $120,000,000,000 out of $3,700,000,000,000.

Go ahead and try 120/3700 on your calculator. The result I get is .0324.

That a 3.24% budget cut across the entire government. Could you cut 3.24% of your household budget? I could... It would hurt a little, but it's doable. But it's apparently too hard for our elected officials.

I know that things are exempt from the supercommittee's review. COLA for social security and federal retirees will add 3% or so this year to those payments. Also that the President's budget didn't pass. In fact no budget has passed. We're on continuing resolutions and mini-bus excursions. But those are details.

The fact is that Washington finds it too hard to do something most any of us could do without yelling and screaming.

Cut 3.24%. Everywhere. That they can't do it should be pointed out. Clearly. With the math.

As the Professor says... "At the very least they should be mercilessly mocked."

Progressive Taxes are Unfair

Listening to the various discussions on the flat taxes and the national sales taxes I keep hearing how flat taxes are unfair to lower wage earners because they "impact" lower wage earners more. I used to get that... but now I'm not so sure. Here's how I see it...

Work is work. Say I'm working hard for an hour, doing the best I can with the tools at my disposal to complete the task at hand. That task may be digging a ditch, waiting tables, fixing a pipe, or analyzing some numbers. Someone places a dollar value on an hour of work, and if I agree, I'll give them the outputs of my labor for that dollar value. Some work I'll get $10 an hour for, other work I'll get $50 an hour for. Most of us strive to enhance and apply our talents and tools to do something that will make us $50 an hour. This will allow us to better provide for our families. We don't all have the tools and talent to get there, but it's a goal.

I also agree to let the government take part of that money I just worked for.

Let's say we have a 10% flat tax.
If I earn $10 an hour, they take $1, or 6 minutes of my labor.
If I earn $20 an hour, they take $2, or 6 minutes of my labor.
If I earn $50 an hour, they take $5, or 6 minutes of my labor.

That's fine. I earn more, so I can pay more in dollars, but it still "costs" me the same amount of effort to generate those dollars. Assuming I am creating value equal to those dollars, that is adding to the economic output of the nation. The more I earn per hour, the more I earn keep. It's linear. Sounds fair to me.

But a "progressive" tax is different. Say we have tax rates of 10%, 20% and 30%.
If I earn $10 an hour, they take $1, or 6 minutes of my labor.
If I earn $20 an hour, they take $4, or 12 minutes of my labor.
If I earn $50 an hour, they take $15, or 18 minutes of my labor.

This progressive tax rate is acceptable to some. I think it is based on the premise of what I have left over after the government taxes me. "Hey, if you earn $50 an hour, at a %10 tax rate, you still have $45. That's too much. We think you should be good with having $35."

This line of thinking devalues my work. It means that the government must make a value judgement about my labor. It removes the incentive of striving to produce more value and to make more for myself. It takes away the fruits of my work in the name of fairness. But it is not fair.